Robert Robb: The story of the internet before the FCC adopted net neutrality was one of rapidly improving performance and expanding consumer choices.

I understand an argument in favor of net neutrality, although I don’t find it persuasive. I confess to not understanding the almost religious fervor about the concept in some quarters.

Net neutrality is a requirement that all internet providers allow access to all lawful content at the same speed. The Federal Communications Commission adopted net neutrality in 2015, when Democrats constituted the majority. Now that Republicans have a majority, the commission is expected to repeal the rule in December.

The rule has three “No”s: No blocking of lawful content. No throttling, or reducing download speeds for some content. And no paid prioritization, or allowing some content providers to pay to have their stuff delivered faster than usual, what is referred to as a fast lane.

Competition solves blocking, throttling

There is now reasonably robust competition for internet service. I receive an offer from Cox roughly every other day. And on the days I don’t hear from Cox, I get one from CenturyLink.

I’m a cord-cutter. I rely entirely on mobile bandwidth. The step up from 3G to 4G made this an acceptable option for many people. And 5G, which will be orders of magnitude even faster, is expected to be available within a couple of years.

In the past, when competition wasn’t quite as robust, there were isolated instances of blocking and throttling. An internet provider here blocked access to a competitor’s telephony. An internet provider there slowed download speeds for a file-sharing application.

Competition renders this a remote possibility today. Consumers expect their internet service to be able to access all lawful sites at a reasonable speed. An internet provider who failed to meet that expectation would lose customers to those who did.

If not, it would be a simple thing to establish a minimum quality of service standard. Require that all internet providers allow access to all lawful sites at some reasonable speed.

The real issue is paid 'fast lanes'

CLOSE

The Obama-era regulation might come to an end.
Time

So, the real issue is paid prioritization, or offering for sale access to an internet fast lane. And here, the FCC promptly tripped over its own rule.

More and more internet traffic is migrating to mobile phones and other devices subject to data caps. Some content providers want to pay the internet providers so that their content can be viewed without it being subject to the data caps.

The content providers feel this is a worthwhile investment in generating more traffic to their sites. It’s a benefit to consumers, who can view content without it counting against their data cap. It leaves data cap space available for other content providers.

Does this, however, violate net neutrality, the requirement to treat all web content the same? The FCC staff pondered that question for more than a year without reaching a conclusion.

The objections to paid prioritization are a bit disharmonious. Large content providers feel that, if a fast lane is available, they will have to pay to be in it. So, they would rather it not exist.

And public interest groups feel that if the biggies are in a fast lane, that disadvantages smaller, upstart competitors who might not be able to afford the fast-lane freight.

This shouldn't be government's role

It shouldn’t, however, be a role of government to tilt the scales in the market interactions between behemoth internet providers and colossal content providers. Those big boys can fend for themselves.

Nor should it be a role for government to deny incumbents the earned advantages of market share.

Moreover, this is all a speculative shot in the dark. No one know how much faster a fast lane might be or what it might cost to be in it.

The religious view considers the internet a vast commons that government has to protect and provide equal access to. But the means of accessing the commons isn’t part of the commons.

Internet providers have invested billions in their systems. They should have the right to market their systems as they see fit without government interference, unless and until some demonstrated market failure or public injury.

That hasn’t been the case. The story of the internet before the FCC adopted net neutrality was one of rapidly improving performance and expanding consumer choices.